This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion
After reading Peel, Bukan, and Miller (the two sources cited and one proposed), I think the current section should be rewritten, but not entirely removed. There appears to be a difference of opinion amongst historians about Eddy's relationship with British Israelism (even Peel on pg. 118 acknowledges Eddy was "intrigued" by the theory "... the Anglo-Israel issue gradually drifted into the background of Mrs. Eddy's thinking. Although she continued to be intrigued by the theory for several years, she kept it resolultely out of her work and her writing on Christian Science.") and we should explain the different opinions instead of cutting content entirely. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This entire section [1] is bad editing written from a very biased Christian Science viewpoint. There is no attempt there at neutrality. Apart from Britannica, none of those sources are WP:RS. Why are we citing the Christian Science Monitor? This is Wikipedia not Christian Science Wiki. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the claims of healings are definitely relevant, but the section should be written more neutrally. Use of the CSM isn't great but the claim it backs up seems fine, given that they aren't a source known for outright fabrication. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm a professional, and will go in and edit it less neutrally - I'm good at that. I appreciate the constructive criticism. But to cherry pick two sources that say 'christian science' and then ignore the FOUR BIOGRAPHIES? I don't understand pyschologist's motives here Greg (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, every single author who has written about CS are either biased or non biased. Peel, who is cited dozens of times, is a CS. Milmine, who is cited dozens of times, is a NON cs. Every representation is on there Greg (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
first off, not a christian scientist, but it shouldn't matter, because I have done a lot of wiki edits that no one has complained of non-neutrality. your citing two sources, but what about the FOUR biographies cited? just bringing up two that are CS related isn't really fair. The entire MBE article has citations from biographies, why are the 4 cited sudddenly not credible? there are exact quotes in that section from the books Greg (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how are none of those biographies WP:RS yet the hundreds of other citations are biographies from the same internet archive? how are they different? Greg (talk) (contribs) 20:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but the sources are FOUR BIOGRAPHIES. Can someone tell me what about the biographies I cited are diff't than the hundreds of others on the page? They are all written by CS or non CS biographers. Greg (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
healings are healings. they are claims. i do not for one second say they happened or are credible. I cite every line with a source, and what they said about it. i'm not making any personal assertions. but of course i'm not perfect and if neutrality was the only issue, i can try and fix it Greg (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but i dont' see a way to be neutral when talking about healings. even if a healing happened, many will say 'no it didn't.' so the mere talking about it causes controversy. but i let the books say things, not me personally. Greg (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
u guys win. this is too stressful. i honestly just added a section based on direct lines from sources and my understanding of her and her Science - I'm not a part of the religion but I do take interest in a lot of spiritual movements, which is actually an asset the way I see it. i really do pride myself on neutrality, and if i make a mistake i fix it. but it's just not worth my time anymore - i appreciate the forum. Greg (talk) (contribs) 20:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gregorcollins, those biographies were not written by scholars, they were all written by those with a Christian Science viewpoint, 2 of those biographies were promoted by the Mother Church. It would be like going to a creationist article and citing someone like Ken Ham. The article is a serious mess, Robert Peel is cited over 20 times. His book should be removed off Wikipedia. He worked for the Christian Science church, it is impossible for him to be neutral on anything Eddy related. Practically everything he wrote was his opinion to defend Eddy. This line for example "However, at the time when she was said to be a medium there, she lived some distance away in North Groton, where she was bedridden". The bedridden claim is only sourced to Peel. This is Peels opinion but is passed as fact on the article. She wasn't bedridden, this was Peel defending Eddy and Gill cites Peel without checking the information. Other sources make no mention of this. There are many of Peel's opinions passed off as fact in the article. As above, the YouTuber who raised these concerns was actually correct. The books that should be cited are those written by neutral researchers like James Whorton, Martin Gardner, Edwin Dakin, Ernest Sutherland Bates, Fleta Campbell Springer etc.
In the article you added "Eddy's spiritual gifts have been documented by friends, colleagues and biographers since she was a child". This is another issue for me. You are literally saying she had spiritual gifts. I realise you are an experienced editor and you have many good edits but this stuff is no good for me I am afraid. We all slip up at some time or another. I would just put this down to a bad day and move on. If you read Gardner's book, there really isn't any other choice other than to recognize that Eddy was a blatant scammer. I do not know any serious scholar who would claim she had spiritual gifts. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it's the subject of spiritual healings that i will never touch again. a healing could be nationally televised, a billion ppl see it live and attest to it, and some would say it was "staged' and then it would spread like wildfire and then the actual genuine healing would be chalked up as 'scam' for the rest of eternity. so it's really a dead end road on wiki, i realize that now. i mean even if milmine and cather (vehement CS opposers) said a healing happened, ppl would dispute, so it's literally a fool's errand. Gill, btw, is a neutral biographer, who is cited many times there. She is a non-christian scientist who has written many books and who, from a non CS perspective, actually wrote a fair and balanced book. Peel, tho a cs, is still a respected scholar, and gottchalk, a cs, is as well - sure, not by extremists, but they can't be satisfied. See you are coming at it biased by saying she's a scammer - those are from books with a history of trying to eradicate the religion from the planet, based on personal vendettas against Eddy. I'm not saying Eddy is a scammer, i'm just reporting what biographers - some CS, some not - have said. Okay, in my section i cited CS biographers - only because i wanted to add new sources. There are TONS of vehement Eddy opposers in the article, and yet there are flattering things said in the article from those sources. anyway, i will exit now, and probably never touch anything controversial or spiritual again on here. Good day :) Greg (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also religion is a slippery slope on wiki, because religion involves faith, faith involves healing, and all the anti-healing faith ppl will have terminal problems with any claims they make - so then wiki religion just becomes a page of lifeless facts that don't ever encapsulate what it truly is Greg (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what we are aiming for as wp:truth is A. not always in fact true, and B. varies from culture to culture. Yes we deal in verifiable facts as expressed by independent experts. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
Not done for now: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Encoded Talk 💬 09:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)